Well here we go again….a Oklahoma voter approved ban on Sharia law in their State is put on Stay while being reviewed. If Oklahoma holds Judicial Retention elections as Iowa just held,they might want to remember the name of this Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange if on Nov. 22 what the voters voted for is once again knocked down by this Federal judge.

Prior to the vote, ads supporting SQ 755 referenced a New Jersey case where a Muslim woman divorced her husband and filed a restraining order after he raped her. He claimed his culture and religion allowed him to have sex with his wife whenever he wanted, regardless if his wife wanted sex or not. The court agreed with this custom, rather than the law of New Jersey. This case has reverberated around the country and caused concern in some corners that similar rulings could possibly be made in states like Oklahoma..(I’ll say this….if you want to live under Sharia Law go to a Muslim country….the United States is a Christian nation and will NOT allow it over here)

As Rep. Rex Duncan, who co-sponsored the bill that would ban Shariah law, told the press today that Miles-LaGrange made some “extraordinary statements” and “her words from the bench indicated she had completely embraced the plaintiff’s arguments.” Duncan also questioned why Miles-LaGrange didn’t question Awad’s “standing,” considering he is presumably not an Oklahoma resident.

Here is her esteemed your honorship…

Lawsuit Filed Against Oklahoma’s Voter-Approved Ban on Islamic Shari’a Law

Oklahoma Muslim filed a federal lawsuit on Thursday to block a state constitutional amendment overwhelmingly approved by voters that would prohibit state courts from considering international law or Islamic law when deciding cases.

The measure, which got 70 percent of the vote in Tuesday’s election, was one of several on Oklahoma’s ballot that critics said pandered to conservatives and would move the state further to the right.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Oklahoma City, seeks a temporary retraining order and injunction to block the election results from being certified by the state Election Board on Nov. 9.

Among other things, the lawsuit alleges the ballot measure transforms Oklahoma’s Constitution into “an enduring condemnation” of Islam by singling it out for special restrictions by barring Islamic law, also known as Sharia law.

“We have a handful of politicians who have pushed an amendment onto our state ballot and then conducted a well-planned and well-funded campaign of misinformation and fear,” said Muneer Awad, who filed the suit and is executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma. “We have certain unalienable rights, and those rights cannot be taken away from me by a political campaign.” About 20,000 and 30,000 Muslims live in Oklahoma, Awad estimated. (That’s right Mr. Awad but our rights over here will NOT to governed by Sharia Law or International Law, but by OUR Constitution!)

Legal experts have also questioned the measure.

The measure is scheduled to go into effect on Jan. 1. It’s author, Rep. Rex Duncan, R-Sand Springs, said it was not intended to attack Muslims but to prevent activist judges from relying on international law or Islamic law when ruling on legal cases.

“The threat posed by activist judges is clear,” Duncan said. “It shouldn’t matter what the law in France or any other European country is.”

Duncan described the measure as “a pre-emptive strike” in Oklahoma, where he said activist judges are not an imminent problem. But some judges elsewhere, including U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, believe courts should look to the law of other countries for guidance when deciding cases, he said.

Ginsburg told a meeting of international lawyers in Washington in July that American judges can learn from their foreign counterparts when seeking solutions to “trying questions.”

Among the 10 other questions on Tuesday’s ballot were a measure that would make English the state’s official language and another one the allows residents to “opt-out” of the new federal health care reform law. Both passed.

The questions are the product of a Republican-controlled Legislature, which circumvented Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry — a Democrat — to take them to the ballot. Critics say Republicans were trying to beef up voter turnout among certain conservative groups by appealing to biases on immigration, Islam and the reach of Washington in a state where President Barack Obama failed to win a single county in 2008.

Republicans have denied there is a conspiracy, saying that some of the measures are designed to protect citizens from the reach of the federal government.

All I can say is that it is about time something like this happened. Not just on the same sex marriage issue, but other many issues as well when the judges go against what the people of that State have done. We have another good example today in Oklahoma where the Citizens voted against ever letting Sharia Law become law in their State. Today a Oklahoma Federal Judge put a stay on that vote becoming effective. If possible the State of Oklahoma should impeach that judge as soon as possible. In this case it was a judicial retention election.Then the remaining judges will think twice before overturning what the majority of the Citizens voted into law. Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and justices David Baker and Michael Streit were voted off the bench in Tuesday’s election, creating multiple vacancies on the court for the first time since its inception.

Iowa Voters Impeach Three Pro Gay Marriage Judges From Bench

Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich told a conference call for conservative Christian pastors Thursday that Iowans voting to oust three state Supreme Court justices over their 2009 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage was an example of voters “taking on the judicial class,” according to a report by People for the American Way.

Gingrich, while touting the massive Republican wins in Congress and state legislatures as profoundly historic, also called attention to the million-dollar Religious Right-led campaign that led to the rejection of three marriage equality-supporting Iowa Supreme Court justices in retention elections. “Taking on the judicial class,” said Gingrich, and telling judges that “we are not going to tolerate enforced secularization of our country,” is “one of the most important things we can engage in.”

Gingrich, who is once again openly mulling a run for president, will return to Iowa later this month to speak at Iowa State University in Ames. He will discuss his new novel, “Valley Forge: A Story of Endurance and Transformation.” The Republican openly advocated for the judges to be removed from the bench, saying earlier this year that doing so “will send a signal to the whole country that there is a citizens revolt under way.”

Well it’s finally starting to hit the fan with the TSA’s new pat down procedure if you opt out of the ‘virtual strip search’ at the airports.

The largest union of airline pilots in the world is urging its members to boycott body imaging machines currently being rolled out in airports all over the globe, citing dangers of excessive exposure to harmful levels of radiation during the screening process.

The president of the Allied Pilots Association, which represents 11,500 pilots, many of whom work for American Airlines, has urged members of the union to revolt against the devices.

With the Electronic Privacy Information Center already engaged in a lawsuit challenging the legality of naked body scanners,the ACLU has also opened a web page inviting members of the public to submit reports of TSA abuse in the interests of future action.

The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldbergwas told by a TSA agent directly that pat downs were made increasingly invasive not for any genuine security reason, but to make the experience so uncomfortable for the traveler that they would prefer to use the body scanner(just as I previously said…now validated-MD), despite the fact that scientists at Columbia University and the Inter-Agency Committee on Radiation Safety, along with other scientific bodies, have all warned that the devices increase the risk of developing cancer.

Here’s just one pilot’s account of what happened to him while attempting to report for work in the Memphis, Tn airport recently. It appears it cost him his job. I’m also including a link to the comments on this one.

Protect Yourself and Your Family Against TSA Tyranny

For those who may still be unfamiliar, please allow me to briefly explain what’s happening in the U.S.A. today. When a law abiding citizen wishes to travel out of any major airport in the country where the latest air transportation security procedures have been implemented, he or she will now be subjected to what can only be truthfully described as a virtual strip search. The federal government is using funds raised through the Recovery Act to stimulate the economy by installing expensive new Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) systems at airport security checkpoints throughout the nation. These devices enable screeners to see beneath travelers’ clothing to an extremely invasive level of detail. For example, the images are graphic enough to enable agents to determine whether a man has been circumcised, or whether a woman is menstruating.

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is quick to point out that this program is optional. Individuals who decline this indignity, or “opt out”, will instead be physically frisked, which entails a federal security agent’s hands passing over the entire body, including the buttocks, breasts, hair, and genitals. The agent will explain the procedure beforehand, and the traveler is expected to consent and comply or else opt back into the AIT scanner. Otherwise, he or she will not be admitted to the secured side of the facility or allowed to board an aircraft.

On October 15, I was turned away from the security screening checkpoint at Memphis International Airport when I declined both AIT screening and the secondary “enhanced pat-down” procedure. I was attempting to enter the facility for my commute to Houston, where I’m based as a pilot for ExpressJet Airlines, doing business as Continental Express. I did, however, pass through a standard impulse induction metal detector without triggering an alarm, just as I have done approximately once per week at that same checkpoint (which happens to be in Terminal C – hence, “Checkpoint Charlie”) for the past four and a half years.

TSA announced the new screening policies last July. When we learned about the changes, many of my coworkers and I were deeply disturbed, especially as we discovered that this mistreatment was being mandated for crew members as well as passengers – even children! We discussed the various ways in which we might express our rejection of the new rules. Unfortunately, there had been no proposal published, and no opportunity for the public to comment. TSA had simply issued its decree, and it was already on the books. Because we didn’t want an incident like mine to be the first indication of our dissent, our initial concern at the time was to notify the company that we do not consent to having images of our nude bodies produced as a matter of course in performing the routine duties of our profession.

“Neither,” we wrote last August in a letter to our managers, “can we abide being stopped daily by government agents and physically molested,” as a reasonable alternative.

We also wrote: “While we take airline security very seriously, we do not believe the dubious benefits of these invasive measures justify the trade off in employee and passenger privacy and other rights and liberties. It is our view that reasonable levels of security within the air transportation system can and must be achieved without producing images of travelers’ naked bodies or subjecting them without cause to… unwelcome touching at the hands of federally employed airport security guards.”

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

I specifically draw the reader’s attention to the first eight words. Our nation’s founders clearly affirmed “the right of the people to be secure”. It’s equally clear that they saw the kind of wholesale, unprovoked assault against persons and privacy that is being committed within our borders today as a serious threat to that security – serious enough, in fact, to write it down in the Bill of Rights.

What is happening in the U.S.A. today is not safe. The things our government is doing do not make us secure or protect us. On the contrary, it is now necessary for us to protect ourselves from our supposed protectors. My wife and I teach our children to defend their bodies, and not to allow anyone to touch them in certain ways – not even friends or relatives. But if we wish to travel by air as a family, we must now deliver our children over to such abuse at the hands of strangers and tell them it’s okay because these are security guards who work for the government and wear uniforms with shiny badges. We will not. It is not okay. And we urgently implore our neighbors everywhere to protect themselves and their families as well.

Top 10 statements from Obama’s 60 minutes interview…he just doesn’t get it.

10. “…one of the things that I think is important for people to remember is that, you know, this country doesn’t just agree with The New York Times editorial page.”

9. “We have a long tradition in this country of a desire for limited government, the suspicion of the federal government, of a concern that government spends too much money. You know? I mean, that’s as American as apple pie. And although, you know, there’s a new label to this, I mean those sentiments are ones that a lot of people support and give voice to. Including a lot of Democrats.”

8. “I think the Republicans were able to paint my governing philosophy as a classic, traditional, big government liberal. And that’s not something that the American people want….I think the Republicans were successful in creating a picture of the Obama Administration as one that was contrary to those commonsense, Main Street values about the size of government. And so, it I think it is fair to say that, you know, the American people don’t want to see some massive expansion of government.”

7. “I do get discouraged, I mean, there are times where you think, “Dog-gone-it you know, the job numbers aren’t movin’ as fast as I want.” And you know, I thought that the economy would have gotten better by now. You know, one of the things I think you understand — as president you’re held responsible for everything. But you don’t always have control of everything. Right? And especially an economy this big, there are limited tools to encourage the kind of job growth that we need.”

6. “I think a lot of businesses still don’t know what the economy is doing. They don’t know, are consumers gonna start buyin’ again? You know, are we gonna start getting the virtuous cycle, where because businesses start hiring, the people who get hired start shoppin’, which means other businesses are hirin’, and everybody starts feelin’ better about the economy. There’s still a lotta uncertain data out there. And we’re still workin’ through some big problems of the economy.”

5. “One of the things that we got in trouble with — and this is an example of, ‘are there some things you’d do differently’ — we made an estimation that unemployment would peak at eight percent when we were still at the beginning of the crisis… Well, it wasn’t because The Recovery Act didn’t work; it’s because the modeling, in terms of what to expect where unemployment would go to, turned out to be wrong. So, you know, I don’t wanna pretend like I’ve got a crystal ball.”

4. “I don’t think I was naïve. I just think that these things are hard to do. You know, this is a big country.”

3. “…there are more efficient ways to recirculate dollars out there and get people to spend. I mean unemployment insurance, most economists will tell you, is probably the single most important thing we can do to improve the economy.”

2. “We still we’ve got a couple of trillion dollars worth of infrastructure improvements that need to be made around the country.”

Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the United States House of Representatives requests the pleasure of your company at a reception honoring the Accomplishments of the 111th Congress on Wednesday, the tenth day of November, two thousand ten at three thirty in the afternoon Cannon Caucus Room 345 Cannon House Office Building